Consider the following quote, if you will, which people on the Web have been tossing around like a towel in a men's room ever since Florida disrupted our national slumber for the second time in a year (the other time being the Elian thing):

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Joseph Stalin)

Now, I don't want to sound too obvious here ... But has anyone ever wondered why a man who a) never had to stand for election for anything, b) never had to hold an election for anything, and c) would ordinarily never give a crap about anything to do with elections in general since he was a TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR ... would even care about votes at all?

I mean, it's not like the guy needed anyone's votes for anything. In terms of being undemocratic and thoroughly unconcerned with elections, you'd be hard pressed to find a better poster boy for electoral indifference than Stalin. He had 20 million Russians murdered just because he could, which by itself makes Hitler, Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic all look like a bunch of kids sitting around on a playground busting toy pistol caps with a rock.

But since our boy Stalin pretty much acquired his political power using the Machiavelli playbook and to the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong here) never once stood for election, I find this quote to be highly suspect, and thus a potential Net hoax. If you essentially got the top job in the Soviet Union through internal Communist political intrigue and mayhem, why would you logically make a statement like this?

So my question is: Do you have a reliable source to attribute it to, as opposed to just someone's Website? I'd love to know.

* * *
Dear Reader:

The simple answer, based on my research thus far, is no. Though the quote is frequently attributed to "our boy" Stalin, I haven't been able to find evidence anywhere that he actually said such a thing.

GOD BLESS SENSENBRENNER FOR KICKING CONYERS BUTT TODAY!

DID YOU NOTICE SHEILA JACKSON SAYING THE COUNTRY ALLOWED SLAVERY FOR 400 YEARS? HELLO SHEILA! WE WERE NOT A COUNTRY UNTIL 1776 AND WITHIN 75 YEARS WERE ON THE ROAD TO BECOMING THE ONLY NATION IN THE WORLD THAT BANNED SLAVERY!

BRADDO: GET RID OF THE FAKE STALIN QUOTE ON YOUR BLOG: STALIN NEVER SAID IT.

Why do we assume that if Stalin made the statement, he was referring to himself? It's entirely possible he made it in reference to a sham election in a neighboring republic or a foreign country. It could have been just a cynical comment referring to rigged elections throughout history. It's silly to argue over.

Peter King, Republican congressman from Long Island, is quoted on bradblog as saying in 2003,
"It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." That scares me a hell of a lot more than what Stalin said or didn't say...or meant or didn't mean.

Wasseman-Schultz (never trust a hyphenate) and Nadler should get new watches. They were 25 minutes late.

Sheila Jackson Lee whine that "this country allowed slavery for 400 years" an obvious lie because we were not a country until 1776 and 85 years later we commenced action to rid our country of slaver; the only country in the world to do so by a civil war.

More power to Sensenbrenner: He stated numerous times to stick to the Patriot Act but the witnesses kept talking about Gitmo, Iraq, and everything else under the Sun.

Conyers is a fake and a fraud. The sooner he is voted out the better off America will be.

All Sensenbrenner did today was show America what the Republican party's level of understanding of democratic process is. None. The nightmare will end soon, this kind of childish behaviour is waking Americans up to what the Republicans really stand for.

"Dear Reader"...
The simple answer, based on my research thus far, is no. Though the quote is frequently attributed to "our boy" Stalin, I haven't been able to find evidence anywhere that he actually said such a thing. But that doesn't mean he didn't. ... though ...it could have been excerpted from a speech or a private conversation.

I also explored the possibility that Stalin has been wrongly credited with someone else's witticism, but the closest matches I could find by other public figures weren't close enough. Besides the remark you mentioned, usually attributed to "Boss" Tweed of New York, there is this line from Tom Stoppard's philosophical play, Jumpers, produced in 1972: "It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting." A similar thought, perhaps, but notably different wording.

We can't prove that Stalin did utter the words, nor can we prove that he didn't.

Some prime digs and sarcasm directed at non-Sense-nbrenner during the hearing by the Dems:

John Conyers: I want to thank you for complying with the rules. But, I mean, we can do this in a friendly tone or a hostile tone... I think that this tells the story to everybody what the real environment is like here.

Mel Watt: Let me thank the chair for convening the hearing even though he's doing it according to the rules, and he started out kinda testy. (looks at nonSense) And also thank the chairman for not interrupting the witnesses and applying an overly technical view of this hearing.

Sheila Jackson Lee: I will yield to my two colleagues because of the disorientation of the chairman.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: As the senator from Arizona (Trent Franks) stated, sometimes the world does see our vision of democracy, warts and all... this proceeding would be one version of that democracy.

I personally do not think the Patriot Act should be made permanent - EVER. I can't believe our Congresspeople are even considering it. The PA hasn't been tested out to see if these laws will actually prevent terrorism or imho, possibly encourage it. There is no evidence that the PA has actually helped and we have no idea what abuses may be occurring.
This is a quote from The WaPo - Article 6-11-05 (Page 04)
Sens. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) recently told a congressional committee they have not documented any cases of abuse of the act, but only because the law makes it nearly impossible for Congress to provide thorough oversight and investigate possible misuses of the law."
If they make these laws permanent --- It will have happened here.Congress looks with caution at Patriot Act
The fear of many civil libertarians is that the law is so broad that it could be used against those who disagree with government policy. Roger Vann, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, believes that there is a push in Washington to get the law passed even before Congress recesses on the Fourth of July. "This is a huge concern for us," Vann said.
Vann believes there are "significant flaws" in the law, including allowing law enforcement officials' access to people's medical records, bookstore purchases and library borrowing without having probable cause. "National security alerts don't justify an end run around the judicial branch. Some of the more extreme provisions are an attack on American values," he said.
The ACLU simply wants legislators to review the law carefully to determine what works and what may be too invasive, Vann said. "It is a question of putting too much faith in the executive branch of the government. The reality is that our Constitution was constructed with checks and balances Ö not having to ask permission from a judge to search someone's home is a clear violation of the values of the Constitution," Vann said. "Checks and balances are sacred to us. We've come to take them for granted. We believe you can be both safe and free."
In today's political climate, Vann feels many people who have spoken out against the act have been branded as traitors. "Our Constitution guarantees the right to dissent in this country. There are provisions of the Patriot Act could be used to quash dissent," Vann said.
Vann urges people opposed to the act to lobby their legislators. "If folks do not speak out and challenge members of Congress, there is a very real chance that this will become permanent and the powers of the government will be expanded," Vann said.
MORE

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

USA Patriot Act and the Nazi Enabling Act
Opponents to the bill argued that if it was passed, it would end democracy in Germany and establish a legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. To soften resistance to the passing of the Enabling Act, the Nazis secretly caused confusion in order to create an atmosphere in which the law seem necessary to restore order.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." ~ Edmund Burke

jimmo said: "More power to Sensenbrenner: He stated numerous times to stick to the Patriot Act but the witnesses kept talking about Gitmo, Iraq, and everything else under the Sun."

Without the Patriot Act, innocent people who have been imprisoned at Gitmo would have access to the outside world and legal help. They would not have been held & tortured for years. Therefore, Senselessbrenner is "causing confusion" and essentially, LYING to the public (unless he's unable to understand the laws under the Patriot Act.)

This article links Lemme's case to the latest Ohio Coin-Gate scandal. My favorite part of the article is a fresh picture of Lemme's room number 132 which clearly shows the window next to the door AND the reflection of the window shows the "wooded area" adjacent to the Knight's Inn parking lot.

it's still a good profound statement and it's very topical for this site.

I'm guessing Jimmo is wanting to distract us from seeking out the truth again by dragging up the slightest things he can find to moan about.

---

Sensenbrenner is a hypocrite, he demands fair treatment, respect and open debate (only where he wants it)... - When it's the other way around... he slams down the gavel, has the mics cut and walks out.

Even if nobody had indicated to me who was republican or democrat... it was a fairly safe bet that it would be Republicans flying off the handle, or breaking some rules or causing some sort of controversy to cease hearings.

And... the hearings were getting ceased one way or another... If it wasn't Sensenbrenner blocking debate in the way he did... I'm sure we'd have seen an immediate escalation in terror alerts instead... or any other lies they could tell to stop the hearings.)

Sure, Sensenbrenner is a crybaby, but if the Democrats were actually breaking the rules by avoiding the issue of the PATRIOT act and using it as a soapbox, this is just another thing that will bite us in the ass.

And if that's not the whole story, you better tell the whole story right away. Because I'm following it, want Bush impeached, and I don't know if Sensenbrenner had good reason to simply walk out. To me, it sounds like maybe he did. That's why you need to tell the whole story. No spin. Sensenbrenner is a damn crybaby, get him with that, but if the democrats did something stupid, don't pretend they didn't, or it'll bite ya. Get the facts. Explain it the way you see it. But get the facts first.

The Democrats WERE following the rules, and the detainee abuses are covered under Section 804 of the Patriot Act. Sensenbrenner had no right to instantly cut the Democrats off.

He said the whole hearing was about the 16 sunset provisions and NOT Section 804, but he clearly said in a tongue biting manner from before, they could disguss the detainees. In fact this was a huge issue which should have been handled in a non-partisan manner. The fact it ended with the republican Sensenbrenner whining and walking out by silencing voices through fascism, tells everyone there is serious problems with Gitmo.

Gitmo and the other abuses are a part of the patriot act, and should have been fully reviewed. That is the citizens rights.

The so-called Patriot Act is the enabling legislation that allowed an environment wherein torture could be imposed on anyone from anywhere. With or without charges being given, without due process of law, and in violation of american and international law.

It should be rejected outright and new legislation drafted FOLLOWING hearings and findings of fact as to exactly what is needed and why.

If there is no valid justification for legislation of the nature of the so called Patriot Act, then it should be rejected soundly.

Like everyone else I will be celebrating the Fourth of July as the birthday of our great nation, but I will be doing so with a nagging sense of foreboding about how much longer it will still be a nation that protects the rights set forth in the Constitution.

It is an aspect of politics, liberal or conservative, that those who believe in Americaís historic role come together when the Constitution is threatened.

Walter M. Brasch, Ph.D., is as liberal as I am conservative. He teaches journalism at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania. His latest book, Americaís Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Governmentís Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights ($24.95, Peter Lang Publishing, New York) was recently published and it documents how the Patriot Act and its enforcement should scare the daylights out of everyone.

I find myself in the company of some of the most famed liberals, Noam Chomsky and Paul Krassner, among others, recommending that anyone concerned about where this nation is currently headed should read Dr. Braschís book.

...Within six weeks of September 11, 2001, Congress approved the USA Patriot Act. Only a few of its members had an opportunity to read its 342 pages before they cast their vote. Only one of a hundred senators voted against it, joined by sixty-six of the 435 members of House of Representatives.

The great service Dr. Brasch has rendered is to have meticulously documented the way elements of the Bill of Rights have been trashed. ďEnforcement of the Patriot Act butts against the protections of six amendments to the Constitution:

∑ First (freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.)

∑ Fourth (freedom from unreasonable search).

∑ Fifth (right against self-incrimination and due process).

∑ Sixth (due process, the right to counsel, a speedy trial, and the right to a fair and public trial by an impartial jury).

∑ Eighth (reasonable bail and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), and

∑ Fourteenth (equal protection guarantee for both citizens and non-citizens).Ē

The Patriot Act was written in secrecy and rushed through Congress ... **more**

Clause 1(a)(1)(b) of Rule XI of the House Rules states:
"It is not within the power of the Chair to unilaterally recess or adjourn a committee hearing or meeting. If an objection is heard, a non-debatable motion to adjourn must be entertained and passed in order to do so."

Sensenbrenner did neither.

AND - let's don't forget the senselessburger quote that started this thread:

"These attacks are contrary to the passionate - but respectful - political debate the public deserves."

-- House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), in a letter sent just two days ago to Howard Dean. That would be two days prior to Sensenbrenner's Judiciary meltdown.

Ah, gee, is it old-timer's disease? How soon they forget ??? Or is it that good ol' boy double standard that describes the 'Cons to a tee?

We need to say this over and over again:

"These attacks are contrary to the passionate - but respectful - political debate the public deserves."

Cheney's comments yesterday are a dead giveaway about how the administration feels about torture, Guantanamo, and the Patriot Act.

If we THINK someone is a terrorist, we have a RIGHT to hold him incommunicado for as long as we wish...without access to a lawyer and without a trial. Interrogation techniques judged unacceptable under the Geneva Convention are ACCEPTABLE if we THINK the person being interrogated represents a terrorist regime.

Cheney never acknowledges any of the following:

1) Our intelligence, which has so often been wrong and/or manipulated, could have led us to hold an innocent person as a terrorist.

2) The longer detainees are held without trial, the harder it will be to convict them of a crime at some later date...if in fact they have committed crimes.

3) Abuse of detainees will inevitably lead to the same treatment of Americans held by foreigners.

4) We diverted manpower from Afghanistan to Iraq, thereby compromising the legitimate pursuit of terroists...otherwise bin Laden might have been in custody by now.